What have you been reading, hearing or TV viewing that has provoked some feelings of comfort or concern about what is happening in the world of medicine, medical care, treatment or science? Ethics is all about doing the right thing. Are you aware of any issues in medicine or biologic science which are being done right, could be improved or in fact represent totally unethical behavior?
Write about them here.. and I will too! ..Maurice (DoktorMo@aol.com)

REMINDER: I AM POSTING A NEW TOPIC ABOUT ONCE A WEEK OR PERHAPS TWICE A WEEK. HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T FIND A NEW TOPIC POSTED, THERE ARE AS OF MARCH 2013 OVER 900 TOPIC THREADS TO WHICH YOU CAN READ AND WRITE COMMENTS. I WILL BE AWARE OF EACH COMMENTARY AND MAY COME BACK WITH A REPLY.

TO FIND A TOPIC OF INTEREST TO YOU ON THIS BLOG, SIMPLY TYPE IN THE NAME OR WORDS RELATED TO THE TOPIC IN THE FIELD IN THE LEFT HAND SIDE AT TOP OF THE PAGE AND THEN CLICK ON “SEARCH BLOG”. WITH WELL OVER 900 TOPICS, MOST ABOUT GENERAL OR SPECIFIC ETHICAL ISSUES BUT NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO ANY SPECIFIC DATE OR EVENT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND WHAT YOU WANT. IF YOU DON’T PLEASE WRITE TO ME ON THE FEEDBACK THREAD OR BY E-MAIL DoktorMo@aol.com

IMPORTANT REQUEST TO ALL WHO COMMENT ON THIS BLOG: ALL COMMENTERS WHO WISH TO SIGN ON AS ANONYMOUS NEVERTHELESS PLEASE SIGN OFF AT THE END OF YOUR COMMENTS WITH A CONSISTENT PSEUDONYM NAME OR SOME INITIALS TO HELP MAINTAIN CONTINUITY AND NOT REQUIRE RESPONDERS TO LOOK UP THE DATE AND TIME OF THE POSTING TO DEFINE WHICH ANONYMOUS SAID WHAT. Thanks. ..Maurice

FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK! WRITE YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THIS BLOG, WHAT IS GOOD, POOR AND CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT TO THIS FEEDBACK THREAD

Saturday, December 08, 2007

"The Best is to have Never Been Born" or...?

Most people believe that they were either benefited or at least not harmed by being brought into existence. Thus, if they ever do reflect on whether they should bring others into existence--rather than having children without even thinking about whether they should--they presume that they do them no harm. Better Never to Have Been challenges these assumptions. David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm. Although the good things in one's life make one's life go better than it otherwise would have gone, one could not have been deprived by their absence if one had not existed. Those who never exist cannot be deprived. However, by coming into existence one does suffer quite serious harms that could not have befallen one had one not come into existence. Drawing on the relevant psychological literature, the author shows that there are a number of well-documented features of human psychology that explain why people systematically overestimate the quality of their lives and why they are thus resistant to the suggestion that they were seriously harmed by being brought into existence. The author then argues for the "anti-natal" view--that it is always wrong to have children--and he shows that combining the anti-natal view with common pro-choice views about fetal moral status yield a "pro-death" view about abortion (at the earlier stages of gestation). Anti-natalism also implies that it would be better if humanity became extinct. Although counter-intuitive for many, that implication is defended, not least by showing that it solves many conundrums of moral theory about population.

An ethicist on a bioethics listserv in response to this topic provided this added bit of historic philosophic writing:

10 Comments:

"the virtue of non-existence" can not be virtuous because it wouldn't exist.

I for one am glad that I was born and by the same token, I am fortunate to have brought two productive human beings into this world.

I can understand that a Holocaust victim may feel that it is better to have "never been born." I have never walked in his shoes so I do not know how deep that reality may have been at the time those words were spoken. But thoughts are sometimes fleeting. The author of "Night" never mentioned that he wanted to die, but he wrote of his struggle to survive, and he wrote of other's struggle to live and become free.

I think the author of "The Best is to have Never Been Born," may be able to say those words because he is already here. If he truly felt that it would be better to have never been born, why did he choose to write a book to prove that he, in fact, was here and wanted to have an impact? You can't prove non-existence is better if you choose to exist, and let other know you exist as well.

"If he truly felt that it would be better to have never been born, why did he choose to write a book to prove that he, in fact, was here and wanted to have an impact? You can't prove non-existence is better if you choose to exist, and let other know you exist as well."

I can't disagree with your statement. My only explanation of the author's behavior would be that he may think that if he exists then he might as well make the most of it! ..Maurice.

Heine is correct. The misery and futility of a brief life in a universe we can never understand is not preferable to the perfection of non existence. The human race is no better for Earth than a harmful virus or plague. Overcoming our most basic urge and chosing to not procreate at least shows we are not total automatons being ordered about by our DNA.

d.c. Godfrey, I can think of many non-beneficial and non-contructive activities that humans have performed on planet earth..but can you think of any benefit we humans have accomplished that will make a difference in 100,000 or a million years from now? Our years of messing around with the genetics of plants and animals might be considered but probably the effect will be insignificant by then and maybe we humans will not even be around to evaluate what we have accomplished. ..Maurice.

The human life is only then truely fulfilled when one does give in to the urges programmed in our DNA.(Reproduction and co.)

From this view, human life is an endless cycle of struggles to reach fulfillment, of which a large part is reproduction.

Living is better than non-existence as long as we actively partake in the struggle.

That said, someone who deliberately does not partake in this cycle will almost certainly agree with Heine because a large part of the natural reason for his existence is inactive.

If this cycle is broken, if people decide to deliberately not struggle and try to find fulfillment in other ways (Budhists?)... well i guess you could call it the persuite of "perfection of non-existence".

Just a comment on the use of Heine's lines. He wrote a poem with three characters. One of the characters states these lines at the end of a poem about her relationships with these two men. Heine was not necessarily stating his own view. Therefore, I would not say "Heine was right." He was just alive enough to write some good lines for a character who connected morphine and her desire for these two men with a desire for oblivion. -pyotr

This is a very old concept discussed not only by Greek philosophers but it is also covered several times in the old and new testament.

It's worth noting that there is a VERY big difference between wanting to die and preferring not to have existed in the first place.

For me, at least, I'd never think it'd be better to die but I still believe it could well have been better if I hadn't lived to begin with. It doesn't stop me from trying to live a fulfilling and ethical life and doing my best to help my fellow travelers.

Once you are here, your untimely death will almost certainly add to the suffering of those who love you. If you don't have any family or friends, it could still be argued you should be spending your time here trying to reduce the suffering of others.

Even in a perfect world without suffering, there's no harm in not having existed as you'll not be around to know what you missed.

I don't mean to preach (I'm an secular humanist and atheist/theological noncognitivist so that's really not my thing) but I do have respect for some biblical authors. Kohelet (son of King David) is one of those authors and while I don't always agree with him, my two favorite passages on the subject are his:

So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 4:2,3)

If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, “Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.” (Ecclesiastes 6:3-5)

Even Jesus agrees at least in the case of one man -- Judas Iscariot:

The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born. (Words attributed to Jesus in both Matthew 26:24; Mark 14:21)

All this guff about "might have been" or "would have been better if..." is a waste of time. We have, here, what is the case - and we are stuck with it. Yes, I take the point that non-existence means considerably less suffering (life being basically a series of events of suffering, culminating in death, the final one) - and existence necessarily means impacting (usually negatively) on the life of others, and of course on the planet itself. BUT - all this blether assumes that we have a choice.In a block universe (for which there is considerable evidence in particle physics) there are no choices, because there is no free will, because past, present and future are of equal validity - i.e. of none, because all we can do is to hitch a ride on the arrow of time - we cannot influence the trajectory.As nothing we can do will alter, by one iota, the "course of events" (which is not actually a "course"), then even discussing whether - or not - we should be here is an utter waste of energy.Of course, we always were going to have this discussion - however useless - so that, also, cannot be changed - as also cannot be this statement that I'm typing - and so on... No - I don't know why I'm bothering either - but I always was going to, so...

I'm sorry to say that I'm one of those people who shouldn't have been born. My life's been a tragedy from day 1: dysfunctional family, parents unable to take care of me, no one in my family wanted or were capable of caring for me, bullied mercilessly as a child, tried therapy but it didn't help 'cause the "therapists" were wealthy, privileged kids who'd never struggled much in life, the types who tried to convince me that nothing was really wrong, that my parents really loved me, blah, blah, blah but wouldn't help me with my real problems. Now thanks to our previous President, I'm struggling financially and can't afford to live. Can't afford to eat, can't afford health care, etc. Yet if I tried to commit suicide I'd be labeled "mentally ill."

I could end up homeless and just get raped and murdered on the street and that would be okay with those people--just as long as I don't die from suicide. Really, if you're not going to provide jobs for all of us and not going to provide safety nets for those of us who can't find jobs what do you expect us to do?

If I stay alive, I have to eat, have to pay for a roof over my head, etc., but I can't. So what do I do with that conflict? Rob a bank? Camp out as a homeless person on the street? (And there again, I'd just end up dead there because I'm not streetwise.)

Our society needs to make a choice. Do we value human life or not? If we're going to discourage abortions then we should create a livable society. Otherwise, we should just start encouraging people to abort their babies 'cause we aren't ready as a society to create a world they can live in.

The content of this blog is Copyrighted 2004-14. Maurice Bernstein, M.D. All Rights Reserved

FAIR USE NOTICE:

If this site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner, it is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of the ethics dealing with medical practice, medical care, science and scientific research, human rights, social justice and, in addition, the law and politics which cover these areas. It is believed that this use constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed to visitors of this “Bioethics Discussion Blog” without profit to the blog or to those who by visiting this blog have expressed interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The material in this site is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and is not intended to be a substitute for a health care provider's consultation. Please consult your own appropriate health care provider about the applicability of any opinions or recommendations with respect to your own symptoms or medical conditions. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.